ACJ: Puzzling….

Chief Justice : But Life’s Been Good To Me So Far………

July 1, 2012

Dear Members and Others:

There have been a number of additional news articles regarding the fundamental reform of trial court funding enacted by the Legislature last week. We enclose two. We find it puzzling that anyone would ignore that fundamental reform has taken place, or that the diversion of the Trial Court Trust Fund for statewide projects is just a “rumor.” Of course, the AOC’s own documents reveal these expenditures, as reflected in the the Judicial Council’s report to the Legislature in February 2012 entitled “Status of the California Court Case Management System and the Phoenix Program 2011.” That report details that $521 million had been spent through 2011. Of that amount, $174 million was taken from the Trial Court Trust Fund, $197 million was taken from the Trial Court Improvement Fund, $71 million from the Modernization Fund and $70.5 million of unallocated trial court funds. This is an extraordinary expenditure of public funds on a discredited and failed project.

All judges must acknowledge that the past failed structure of the Judicial Council and AOC can no longer be tolerated. The Legislature understands and has acted. The Strategic Evaluation Committee appointed by the Chief Justice understood and has acted. The implementation of the SEC recommendations must begin immediately. The AOC must be reduced to its core statutory functions of ensuring uniform accounting and reporting of trial court funding and expenditures and administrative support of the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council must recognize that it is not a governing body, and must commit itself to strict oversight of the AOC to ensure that the AOC does not stray beyond its limited mandate. The Judicial Council must limit itself to performing its sole constitutional duty of “surveying judicial business, making recommendations, adopting uniform rules of court not inconsistent with statute” (Article VI, Section 6d), and to performing its statutory budget duties which have now been appropriately and strictly limited by the Legislature.

Judges are not policymakers. As judges we must return to our core ethic — to keep the courts open and accessible, and to decide the cases and controversies before us according to law.

Thank you.

Directors, Alliance of California Judges

__________________________________________

CANTIL-SAKAUYE: THESE HANDCUFFS ARE GREAT!

JUNE 29, 2012 from The Recorder’s LegalPad Blog

[Cheryl Miller]
The Legislature and governor may have just slapped harsh spending restrictions on her judicial branch, but Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye insists that she’s “pleased” with new policies contained in the state budget enacted this week.

That’s what she told reporters on a Friday conference call. Along with $544 million in cuts to the courts, the budget bars the Judicial Council from spending trial court money on statewide programs without the Legislature’s consent. Since late 2009, branch leaders have tapped roughly $200 million from the Trial Court Trust Fund to pay for technology maintenance and projects, according to council meeting records. The shifts steamed council critics who wanted the money to go directly to courts.

The council will keep control of a much smaller pot of money created by merging two other funds.

Cantil-Sakauye said the spending restrictions won’t affect the Administrative Office of the Courts at all.

“The cuts we obviously opposed, but in terms of the concepts that are contained within the [budget] bill? No, no opposition to that,” she said. “We approved that concept for clarity.”

That’s not what those in the Capitol say they were hearing from Judicial Council lobbyists. Those familiar with the budget trailer bill’s drafting say council representatives fought restrictions on branch spending.

And the chief justice’s tone has turned much more conciliatory since she took aim at Assembly Bill 1208 earlier this year. The bill would have blocked the Judicial Council from spending any trial court money on programs unless two-thirds of local courts OK’d the transfer. In January, Cantil-Sakauye called the Assembly’s passage of AB 1208 “no victory for Californians, for our state courts or for equal access to justice.” The bill later died in the Senate.

On Friday, the chief justice said she saw no similarities between the budget language and AB 1208.

“Have you read 1208?” she asked reporters. “That’s not how I see it. In terms of the language [restricting] the Trial Court Trust Fund, I’m happy for the clarity. I appreciate that. Judicial Council appreciates that clarity.”

________________________________________

June 29, 2012 Courthouse News Service
Judicial Council Lobbyists Fought Spending Limits Up to Final Vote

By MARIA DINZEO

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in a teleconference Friday that she welcomes recently passed legislation sharply restricting the Judicial Council’s ability to spend money on statewide projects such as a failed, half-billion-dollar IT project. However, lobbyists for the council were vigorously fighting against that very provision, according to legislative sources, right up until the final vote.

The chief justice said she endorsed legislation that requires legislative approval before the Judicial Council can spend money from the trial court trust fund on big projects such as the failed IT system. She also said those restrictions will not in any way affect the AOC’s budget and operations.

“In terms of the language on the trial court trust fund, I’m happy for that clarity,” she said. “The judicial council appreciates that clarity. We’re pleased with this language” she said, adding that the new law “dispels rumors” that trust fund money had been used for statewide initiatives.

However, it appears that lobbyists for the governing council of the courts headed by the chief justice did not welcome the language at all, and in fact fought hard against it.

A highly-placed legislative staff member said lobbyists for the Administrative Office of the Courts, the staff arm of the Judicial Council, strongly opposed language included in a budget trailer bill, that changed the government code to restrict its spending power, right up until the Senate floor vote on Tuesday. The lobbyists for the judiciary leaders asked the Department of Finance to remove that language, according to the legislative staff member.

The trailer bill, which is now part of the budget act signed by Governor Jerry Brown, amends the government code to read, “Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall be construed to authorize the Judicial Council to redirect funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund for any purpose other than for allocation to trial courts or as otherwise specifically appropriated by statute.”

“They didn’t like the portion that restricted their ability to redirect funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund,” said the staff member who asked to speak without attribution. “They wanted that gone and then they wanted that delayed. We ended up delaying that enactment for six months.”

The staffer added that the lobbyists also fought against language prohibiting any further spending from any source on the IT project, called the Court Case Management System, without legislative approval. “They didn’t want CCMS funding to end, they asked that that language be removed. They did not want that language restricting it,” the staff member said.

The enacted budget language has been lauded as a victory for judicial reformers, who have been trying through legislative action to ensure full funding for the trial courts, while limiting the amount of funds that can been siphoned from the courts for projects like CCMS. Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon (D-Industry) said Tuesday that reforms contained in AB 1208, which was staunchly opposed by the chief justice and Judicial Council, were largely enacted through the budget trailer bill’s language.

Michelle Castro, chief lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union, said the new legislation actually goes further than AB 1208 in a number of areas.
“The changes enacted in the trailer bill were more significant than even some of the provisions of 1208,” said Castro. “They went a little further by having legislative counsel search all of the government codes to make sure they weren’t going to leave anything out. It was an incredible effort.”

During Friday’s teleconference with reporters, Cantil-Sakauye said she did not find similarities between AB 1208 and the new law. “I would disagree with the premise that it contains similarity,” she said.

What she deeply opposed, said Cantil-Sakauye, were the big funding cuts imposed on the judiciary by the current budget. The cumulative effect of the cuts has been enormous, amounting over the last three budgets to $650 million taken out of a roughly $4 billion budget.

The cuts have led to layoffs, actual or scheduled, of hundreds of court workers in trial courts up and down California. At the same time, court operations have been curtailed and some courtrooms are being closed.

In that context, the IT project, that wound up costing some $500 million, is a particularly sore point among trial court judges.
Nevertheless, in the chaotic horse trading that accompanies passage of a massive budget such as California’s, the lobbyists for the Judicial Council continued to seek millions of dollars to spend on the now-terminated project.

“There was actually a request to spend $5.1 million additional money for CCMS,” said the highly placed legislative staffer. “My understanding is for CCMS staff they used to have 51 employees.

They’d laid off 48 of them and have three employees left. Those three employees are trying to do a report for the chief justice and probably the Judicial Council, to say we stopped CCMS, here are some ways you can use it. During the budget negotiations, their cost for this salvage effort was $5 million. The Legislature said why would we spend $5 million on figuring out what to do.”

The staffer commended interim AOC Director Jody Patel for later calling to say the AOC could probably retain the employees for one month for $30,000 to finish the report. “Part of the stress between the Legislature and the judicial branch has been these half-truths,” said the staffer. “The devil is in the details. She’s trying to change that culture.”

While no funding has yet been approved, the chief justice said Friday, “We are still trying to figure out how we can go forward with winding it down and parting it out. The budget does say no further funding can be spent on CCMS. We would of course abide by that. We do want to see if we can use limited funds to wind down and use parts of a $550 million system that actually worked. We’d love to see what we can give the courts from a $550 million system.”

She added, “It’s not phoenix rising, it’s trying to use its parts. We’ll be very transparent and open about it as we’ve always tried to be.” (The laughter should only last a minute or so)

Unionman, thanks! Miss Dilbert. Another example of the tail wagging the dog in this sad JC/AOC/CJ saga. Yeah, no one can make this stuff up. ;-)

And another Tani version of the truth: “We do want to see if we can use limited funds to wind down and use parts of a $550 million system that actually worked. We’d love to see what we can give the courts from a $550 million system.”

Huh? It actually worked? Whaaaa??!! Still harping on that old lie? And why would anyone have to “part out” a system that “actually worked”?

JC Members, some advice: Don’t stand too close to teensy Tani when lightning finally strikes her for telling too many “versions of the truth,” i.e., LIES.

Ant, you struck a chord that makes you better qualified than Mark Dusman with this key question:

Huh? It actually worked? Whaaaa??!! Still harping on that old lie? And why would anyone have to “part out” a system that “actually worked”?

Answer: You would not part out a system that actually worked. That’s like buying a rolls off the showroom floor – and scrapping it at a junkyard.

Unless things have drastically changed, the AOC had been demonstrating simulations of CCMS for as long as I can remember. It is simulations of how the program is supposed to work. The reason they’ve used simulations for years is that there was much that was undeveloped – and there still is – that they could not show CCMS V4 in action.

Regarding the Chief Justice and her lack of credibility. My Mom taught me this great phrase many years ago : “You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time “. Please just implement the SEC report and democratize the Judicial Council. Happy 4th of July everyone.

The CJ’s recent steps to add additional members to the Judicial Council, allegedly as a mechanism to make that body more “representative”, simply has insured that no meaningful decision making will take place.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – Gov. Jerry Brown says he can close California’s nearly $16 billion spending gap with a $91.3 billion budget, but voters will first need to pass his tax increases in November.

Spending reductions account for almost half of the effort to close the $15.7 billion gap, according to Brown’s budget summary. Education took the greatest hit, losing nearly $2.4 billion from previous levels with cuts to largely extraneous programs, the suspension of nonmandated spending and changes to spending process mandated by Proposition 98.

Brown’s budge also axes more than $1.8 billion from health and human services by eliminating the Healthy Families program. Children using those services will be transferred to California Medical Assistance Program. The state will offset Medi-Cal’s new costs by merging the delivery of services to people eligible for both state and federal health services.

Hospitals and nursing homes will also lose Medi-Cal, and the budget takes another chunk out of in-home supportive services – a move likely to be challenged again in federal court.

Parents who fail to meet federal work requirements will also face cuts in the California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids program, or CalWORKs.
State workers will feel the pinch, too, with an across-the-board 5 percent pay cut.

Brown says his administration has focused on shrinking state government, already eliminating 30,000 positions and 50 boards, commissions, task forces, offices and departments since he took office in 2011.

And the judiciary will feel its share of budgetary pain. In addition to tighter controls recently enacted by the Legislature, the new budget hands another $544 million cut to the state’s already cash-strapped courts.

California will offset a one-time general fund decrease of $486 million by suspending court-construction plans, requiring the judiciary to dip into reserves and increase civil court filing fees.

For all Brown’s talk of fiscal responsibility, California’s final budget for 2012-2013 is not without its gimmicks. More than $2.5 billion – 15 percent – of the budget “balancing” proposals require the transfer of special funds to the general fund. The budget also shanghais vehicle weight fees from the California Department of Transportation. And it extends loan repayments into future years, guaranteeing that the pain will endure for years to come.

Brown has admitted that the “balancing” act requires that voters approve his package of tax increases in November. The measure increases taxes on households earning over $250,000 for seven years and raises California’s sales tax by a quarter percent for four years. Brown says the increases will generate $8.5 billion through 2013, with $2.9 billion already earmarked for education.

“My revenue proposal is fair and temporary,” Brown said in a statement after signing the budget late Wednesday. “Our state budget problem was built up over a decade, and it won’t be fixed overnight. These temporary increases will ensure funding for our schools until the economy improves.”

A recent field poll found that 52 percent of voters currently back Brown’s initiative, but 13 percent are still undecided. Another poll shows large proportions of voters say they don’t have much confidence in either Brown or the Legislature to effectively resolve the state’s budget deficit.

If voters fail to pass Brown’s tax increases, the enacted budget includes $6 billion in trigger cuts that would land in January. The vast majority of the cuts – a huge $5.4 billion – would hit California’s K-12 schools and community colleges. The University of California and California State University systems would each face $250 million cuts. Brown promises that the cuts protect public safety.

At the end of the day, California’s budget problems hinge on legislative overspending. Total state spending has increased by $4.4 billion since 2007-08 – the start of the current worldwide economic crisis, according to Brown’s budget.

The raw numbers do not portend much change.

If the governor’s tax package passes, the state expects to generate nearly $133 billion in revenue next year. Unfortunately, 2012-13 expenditures are projected at more than $142 billion across the board.

Brown says he is still optimistic that this budget that will solve California’s woes.

“This budget reflects tough choices that will help get California back on track,” he said in a statement. “I commend the Legislature for making difficult decisions, especially enacting welfare reform and across-the-board pay cuts. All this lays the foundation for job growth and continuing economic expansion.”

“At the end of the day, California’s budget problems hinge on legislative overspending. Total state spending has increased by $4.4 billion since 2007-08 – the start of the current worldwide economic crisis, according to Brown’s budget.”

Pretty simplistic, but perhaps we should postpone that Bullet Train project until better times. I see a simple budget solution right there. Am I wrong?

Employee Positions: 946
State civil service positions for the selected department are presented here alphabetically by subdivision (if applicable) and classification; you have the option to sort the table below by a column by clicking on the text of that column heading.

The Strategic Evaluation Committee (SEC) was appointed by Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye in March 2011 to conduct an in-depth review of the AOC with a view toward promoting transparency, accountability, and efficiency.The Chief Justice received the report and recommendations on May 25. At its meeting on June 21, 2012, the Judicial Council accepted the report and directed that it be posted for public comment for 30 days. Comments received will be considered public and posted by name and organization under the Comments Received link below.

So is this like ground hog day. I submitted detailed answers and comments to Justice Scotland’s survey and now I have until July 22 to submit more answers to Justice Miller’s survey. I have a great idea and this can make it easy for everyone to make a powerful point and avoid the risk of any retribution from those that patrol the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate. In answer to each of Justice Miller’s questions all should respond, See the SEC report.That pretty much says it all and shows how absurd it is we are going through yet another survey plowing through the same old ground over and over again.As many others have said above, implement the SEC report and democratize the Judicial Council and we can move on to healing the branch for the benefit of the citizens we serve. Happy 4th of July everyone .

As I noted in a prior post, Lando, when the SEC requested comments, those providing them were assured confidentiality. The comments (and names of commentators) sought by the Judicial Council will be publicized. People who are concerned about retaliation will simply not take that risk. Judicial Council/AOC loyalists WILL comment and ask that most of the SEC recommendations not be implemented, setting the stage for the Judicial Council to ratify “business as usual”. The credibility of the branch will continue to erode, with the end result being a reduction of services & less access to the courts.

It really seems to have come down to a parent/child relationship hasn’t it? (Tani as the child and the legislature as the parent). The credit card given to the child is over limit and the parents say “enough.” The child responds with a temper tantrum (on You Tube no less).

What we are seeing in place is a system of progressive discipline imposed by the parent on a willful, lying, manipulative, immature child. The discipline adversely affects everyone in the neighborhood, but it is the only tool the parent has.

Manipulating the responses to the SEC Report by requiring disclosure of the responder is an interesting ploy, but it will only confirm the opinion of the Legislature that the branch is out of control and needs even more budget cuts.

A poster here once said that the time has come for a group of distinguished jurists to call on the Chief and offer their counsel that “It’s over.” The people of California cannot afford to be subjected to more court closures and layoffs, both of which deny them needed access to the courts. And even more galling, as the cuts and layoffs continue, the band plays on at 455 Golden Gate.

Res – The Legislature already engaged in progressive discipline when they announced that they were giving the AOC/Judicial Council a “time out” with respect to CCMS funding. But when the the arrogant fools insisted on continuing to spend on CCMS to see what was “salvageable” and continued their other wreckless, irresponsible behavior at the taxpayers expense, the Legislature did the responsible thing and took their credit cards and access to the checkbook away. It’s what any smart parent would do to save a spoiled, entitled child from become completely rotten.

Thank heaven the State Legislature finally saw this behavior for what it is, One Who Knows. And more corrective action is needed, because the AOC/Judicial Council is still determined to be completely rotten.

We have several items of importance to convey in this email, so please read the message to the end.

“BUDGET UPDATE

A full report regarding the court budget will be sent in a subsequent email, but please read the flyer from SEIU that will follow this email. We should be proud of our strength and tenacity as union members, and especially thankful for the leadership embodied by the SEIU lobbyist for court issues, Michelle Castro. This year-long fight resulted in positive results. The cut to the budget is significantly less than it could have been – from $844 million down to $385 million for fiscal year 2012-13. Substantial policy changes protecting trial court funding, a legislative prohibition on spending on the last version of CCMS, and a large cut to the AOC budget make this a true win for all court employees. Thanks to all who helped make this significant victory happen. LACCRA encourages all members to attend a noontime meeting in your courthouse to learn more and talk about the next step as we continue to deal with the budget crisis.

In addition to funding issues, SEIU was able to address two matters directly affecting court reporters. First, a new fee has been added to cover civil proceedings lasting less than an hour. SEIU and LACCRA continue to pressure management to encourage the bench officers to utilize our 3/5 reporters so this money is collected.

Second, the AOC has been stopped from unilaterally imposing “Word Count.” Every jurisdiction has a long-standing agreement between the administration and reporters for transcript payment based on a presumed number of folios (100 words) on a page based on the approved format. Our agreement is 2.58 folios per page for criminal; no more than 3 folios for civil. The AOC’s auditors recently concluded that the trial courts were overpaying for transcripts by using these folio multipliers. The auditors claimed the requisite number of words were not on the page, although there was no consistent definition of what a “word” is. As a result, many administrators began implementing Word Count by requiring their reporters to run their transcripts through a program that counted “words.” In some cases, this was resulting in a 30% loss of transcript income – particularly damaging when there has not been an increase in the folio in almost 23 years. Our union, in partnership with CCRA and COCRA, was able to insert language in the budget trailer bill that allows page-folio agreements that were in effect as of January 1, 2012 to remain and not be changed unilaterally.

Disgusted,
If you wish, you can send these types union/association communications to us at judicialcouncilwatcher@hushmail.com. While we won’t post every union/association communique, this one represents good news for court reporters statewide and we would appreciate the opportunity to post these types of successes.

Let us also add that we have no objection to you posting as a comment, it’s just that we think that this is traffic-worthy (rare) good news for the court system these days is worth posting and blasting out over our syndicated feeds to hundreds of other destinations – something comments don’t do.:)